On the Road
question
Goodreads Poor Rating System
B
Jan 12, 2012 11:32PM
It seems to me that Goodreads made the mistake of beggining with a five star rating system and now will not change to the more accurate ten star rating system because existing members would have to go back and re-adjust their previously rated books.
Consequently, we are not seeing true ratings of books on the Goodreads site like one sees on sites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for movies. This is a pity and a big oversight by Goodreads.
Laughably, some members argue that rating a book out of ten would be too complicated. Hasn't been a problem for the many millions of IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic users.
It's funny, at Goodreads under the current system, we have ratings with 2 numbers after the decimal point; 3.67, 4.02, 3.45 and so on, whereas at IMDB for instance, it is just one number after the decimal point. 6.8, 7.3, 8.4 etc. If having to mark a book out of ten instead of five is too much of an intellectual stretch for these members, deciphering the current three numbered ratings must prove an insurmountable challenge for them...
The problem is simple. Some books simply are not represented adequately by say a 3 or a 4 (as an example). In fact, in some readers' minds they are a 3.5 (or in the logical ten star rating system, a 7). This inadequate rating system is not just personally annoying to me when I go to rate a book I perceive to be a 7 and that's not what matters anyway. Like in a democracy, one's individual vote is not for the individual, it is in fact for the collective whole. In this case, you cast your vote with many others so that others can see how much a large number of people enjoyed a book when deciding whether they will buy and read it themselves. Let's be clear, ratings are not for the individual, they are not supposed to be as simple as possible for the rater to give (if they were, surely we would just have a 2 star system - "I liked it" or "I disliked it"), they are in fact for the potential readers of a book to give them an idea about the feeling of the subjective whole about a certain book's quality.
So, due to Goodreads poor rating system, I must give certain books either a 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 out of 10. To me, there is a big leap between a 3 and a 4. As an example, just I re-read "On The Road" for the first time since I was a kid. It was enjoyable. No doubt an important, influential book by an important, influential writer. I went to rate it and I was stumped. In no way was it a 4 out of ten for me. It was good but not excellent. But by the same token, in absolutely no way was it a 3. I begrudgingly gave it a 4, which is the same as giving it an 8 out of 10. That got me to wondering how many other people basically gave it a rating they felt it didn't really deserve. The fact that I very nearly gave it a 3 but then decided at the last minute that a 3 would be too low means there are probably hundreds out there who did decide to go with the 3 etc etc etc. Bottom line: inaccurate ratings.
And the problem is not just a matter of doubling the ratings to get a mark out of ten, the problem is that because people think some books are a 7, for instance, they are forced to side with a 3 or a 4, distorting the reality of the overall rating with thousands of rating which people gave begrudgingly.
I look through the ratings on Goodreads and I find it hard to gain much insight about how good a book is collectively perceived to be by the current ratings, whereas I go on to IMDB and it's a lot clearer.
Members who share this opinion about the poor Goodreads rating system should speak up. In previous threads, it appears that predominately members who pretend to think the ten star rating system would be too complicated speak up, when in fact, they are just long standing members with too many ratings to go back and re-adjust their previous votes. And as I mentioned, votes are for potential readers, not for those who have already read the book.
It's time for Goodreads to change its rating system or risk loosing existing members and failing to draw some potential members. IMDB and the likes are so successful because this rating system is one of the things that they have nailed. If they hadn't, a competitor would be in their place.
And by the way, as per previous threads, clearly Netflix is not a suitable comparison to Goodreads, just as Amazon Books is not a suitable comparison to IMDB etc
Consequently, we are not seeing true ratings of books on the Goodreads site like one sees on sites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for movies. This is a pity and a big oversight by Goodreads.
Laughably, some members argue that rating a book out of ten would be too complicated. Hasn't been a problem for the many millions of IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic users.
It's funny, at Goodreads under the current system, we have ratings with 2 numbers after the decimal point; 3.67, 4.02, 3.45 and so on, whereas at IMDB for instance, it is just one number after the decimal point. 6.8, 7.3, 8.4 etc. If having to mark a book out of ten instead of five is too much of an intellectual stretch for these members, deciphering the current three numbered ratings must prove an insurmountable challenge for them...
The problem is simple. Some books simply are not represented adequately by say a 3 or a 4 (as an example). In fact, in some readers' minds they are a 3.5 (or in the logical ten star rating system, a 7). This inadequate rating system is not just personally annoying to me when I go to rate a book I perceive to be a 7 and that's not what matters anyway. Like in a democracy, one's individual vote is not for the individual, it is in fact for the collective whole. In this case, you cast your vote with many others so that others can see how much a large number of people enjoyed a book when deciding whether they will buy and read it themselves. Let's be clear, ratings are not for the individual, they are not supposed to be as simple as possible for the rater to give (if they were, surely we would just have a 2 star system - "I liked it" or "I disliked it"), they are in fact for the potential readers of a book to give them an idea about the feeling of the subjective whole about a certain book's quality.
So, due to Goodreads poor rating system, I must give certain books either a 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 out of 10. To me, there is a big leap between a 3 and a 4. As an example, just I re-read "On The Road" for the first time since I was a kid. It was enjoyable. No doubt an important, influential book by an important, influential writer. I went to rate it and I was stumped. In no way was it a 4 out of ten for me. It was good but not excellent. But by the same token, in absolutely no way was it a 3. I begrudgingly gave it a 4, which is the same as giving it an 8 out of 10. That got me to wondering how many other people basically gave it a rating they felt it didn't really deserve. The fact that I very nearly gave it a 3 but then decided at the last minute that a 3 would be too low means there are probably hundreds out there who did decide to go with the 3 etc etc etc. Bottom line: inaccurate ratings.
And the problem is not just a matter of doubling the ratings to get a mark out of ten, the problem is that because people think some books are a 7, for instance, they are forced to side with a 3 or a 4, distorting the reality of the overall rating with thousands of rating which people gave begrudgingly.
I look through the ratings on Goodreads and I find it hard to gain much insight about how good a book is collectively perceived to be by the current ratings, whereas I go on to IMDB and it's a lot clearer.
Members who share this opinion about the poor Goodreads rating system should speak up. In previous threads, it appears that predominately members who pretend to think the ten star rating system would be too complicated speak up, when in fact, they are just long standing members with too many ratings to go back and re-adjust their previous votes. And as I mentioned, votes are for potential readers, not for those who have already read the book.
It's time for Goodreads to change its rating system or risk loosing existing members and failing to draw some potential members. IMDB and the likes are so successful because this rating system is one of the things that they have nailed. If they hadn't, a competitor would be in their place.
And by the way, as per previous threads, clearly Netflix is not a suitable comparison to Goodreads, just as Amazon Books is not a suitable comparison to IMDB etc
reply
flag
I'm also with you on this - I tend to round up and be to generous to too many books. 10 stars makes much more sense
deleted member
Jun 07, 2012 12:55PM
5 votes
It makes sense to me. "I don't like it", "it's okay", "I like it", "I really like it", and "it's amazing".
Why stars though? It could be a five leaf system or a five nipple system or something.
Why stars though? It could be a five leaf system or a five nipple system or something.
Random thoughts:
I think it's best to take all these rating systems with a huge grain of salt. They're opt-in, for one thing, which from a methodology viewpoint renders them meaningless as an aggregate.
There's also a bias on my part, anyway, to only read and rate books I like, hence pretty much everything that I read gets a rating is either a 3 4 or 5.
The Harry Potter phenomenon is simply that only people who like it have rated it; people who would hate it don't bother.
On the other hand, the 'classics' tend to be read, for whatever reason, by people who don't like them, and then give them bad grades. It's a grudge factor, I think.
Perhaps this is a definition of 'classic' book - one that people read even though they don't like them.
Moving to a ten point system doesn't solve any of those problems, however, and statistically speaking you're in the same place whether you use five ten or a hundred points.
And if they wanted to go to ten stars they could just double the stars of all ratings currently in the system and let people adjust however they see fit.
Thanks for the chance to rant!
I think it's best to take all these rating systems with a huge grain of salt. They're opt-in, for one thing, which from a methodology viewpoint renders them meaningless as an aggregate.
There's also a bias on my part, anyway, to only read and rate books I like, hence pretty much everything that I read gets a rating is either a 3 4 or 5.
The Harry Potter phenomenon is simply that only people who like it have rated it; people who would hate it don't bother.
On the other hand, the 'classics' tend to be read, for whatever reason, by people who don't like them, and then give them bad grades. It's a grudge factor, I think.
Perhaps this is a definition of 'classic' book - one that people read even though they don't like them.
Moving to a ten point system doesn't solve any of those problems, however, and statistically speaking you're in the same place whether you use five ten or a hundred points.
And if they wanted to go to ten stars they could just double the stars of all ratings currently in the system and let people adjust however they see fit.
Thanks for the chance to rant!
Joshua Knechtel
You nailed it! Even on Amazon or other consumer oriented review sites, the problem has to do with sampling that will always bias the resulting statist
...more
Ben wrote: "It seems to me that Goodreads made the mistake of beggining with a five star rating system and now will not change to the more accurate ten star rating system because existing members would have to..."
I totally agree. Please make a poll and more noise about it, so we can make changes.
I totally agree. Please make a poll and more noise about it, so we can make changes.
+1
A hate this rating system. I think that the 10 star's rating system is much better. (IMDB, letterboxd.com, rateyourmusic, metacritic, trakt.tv, rottentomatoes, librarything, metalstorm...)
I don't like to use this poor system.
I'm using the other specific region site for booklovers. Yes, they use 10 rating system. (5 stars with half stars; 0.5; 1; 1.5; 2... 4.5 and 5 star) (http://moly.hu)
I don't use gooodreads while this will not change.
A hate this rating system. I think that the 10 star's rating system is much better. (IMDB, letterboxd.com, rateyourmusic, metacritic, trakt.tv, rottentomatoes, librarything, metalstorm...)
I don't like to use this poor system.
I'm using the other specific region site for booklovers. Yes, they use 10 rating system. (5 stars with half stars; 0.5; 1; 1.5; 2... 4.5 and 5 star) (http://moly.hu)
I don't use gooodreads while this will not change.
Absolutely agree... this is the single thing that I hate most about Goodreads. With almost every book I rate I have real problems. A 10 star system is a minimum if you ask me, could even be 10 stars with half stars as well (i.e. 20 steps). The most difficult situation for me comes when rating really excellent books. Sometimes they are not quite a 5, but way over 4 (4 is only 80%!!!). And 5 (100%) has the unique position of being the best score you can give anything, so this naturally needs to be reserved for that handful of absolutely exceptional books. What happens then when I read a 4.8 book? I rate it as 4 - and it gets lumped with the 3.8s and the 3.5s, etc... I know I will probably get shot down for this, but I would like to see a rating system built on the 100 scale. When I read that Robert Parker rates one wine as 97, and another as 93, I understand exactly where he places them - and exactly how close to PERFECT (100) he rates them. What if he only had a 10 point system? Or lo and behold, a 5 point system? It would be useless. And that's what I think of the 5 point rating system here at Goodreads: useless. Please change it. 10 points is an absolute minimum!
Newbie here. The first thing that struck me about the GR rating system is that it's weighted toward the top of the scale. If the stars were distributed equally across the spectrum of possible reactions to a book, it seems to me as if they would stand for: 1=Yuck! I wouldn't wish this book on my worst enemy! 2=Well, I managed to finish it, but wouldn't recommend it to anyone. 3=Liked it okay. Better than watching TV, for sure. 4=Hey, this was a pretty good book. People should know about it. 5=Wow! It changed my life! Everyone must read this! (And whatever you want to add between those, if you prefer a 10 point scale) My point is, when I see 3 stars, my first response is to think it's halfway between "dreadful" and "incredible", which, for me, would be "okay". But on the GR scale, OK is just a 2. So I have to remind myself to skew all my ratings so that they fall in line with GR's point scale, not my evenly distributed intuitive scale. Have I explained this clearly enough? Does anyone share my view?
If it's true that people tend not to bother finishing or rating really bad books, maybe it makes sense not to have as many score points at the lower end of the scale. I, for one, like to be able to warn people away from reading books so bad they are painful. "Didn't like it" just isn't a strong enough statement to express my reaction to a truly awful book. Opinions?
If it's true that people tend not to bother finishing or rating really bad books, maybe it makes sense not to have as many score points at the lower end of the scale. I, for one, like to be able to warn people away from reading books so bad they are painful. "Didn't like it" just isn't a strong enough statement to express my reaction to a truly awful book. Opinions?
The five-star system is standard. B&N, Amazon, Goodreads, and others use it. What's interesting about it is the difference between the meanings theses platforms give to the stars.
----------Amazon--------Goodreads---------B&N
1 Star----Hate it-------Did not like------Poor
2 Stars---Don’t like----It was ok---------Below average
3 Stars---It’s ok-------Liked it----------Good
4 Stars---Like it-------Really liked------Very good
5 Stars---Love it-------It was amazing----Exceptional
So, a 3-star review on Amazon is the same as a 2-star review on Goodreads. That is the problem with the system, not the number of stars.
----------Amazon--------Goodreads---------B&N
1 Star----Hate it-------Did not like------Poor
2 Stars---Don’t like----It was ok---------Below average
3 Stars---It’s ok-------Liked it----------Good
4 Stars---Like it-------Really liked------Very good
5 Stars---Love it-------It was amazing----Exceptional
So, a 3-star review on Amazon is the same as a 2-star review on Goodreads. That is the problem with the system, not the number of stars.
I prefer scoring out of 10, or having half points, like on RateYourMusic, which of course is exatly the same thing, but ultimately it's OK if people just pay attention to what the stars actually refer to. RYM lets you decide yourself, but Goodreads makes it clear and beyond debate, logically only having one negative rating (1 = 'I didn't like it') because I guess not many people finish books they don't like, plus who really is interested in gradations of 'not worth your time', then 2 as 'OK' and then 3 positive ratings. It's fair enough if you just pay attention to this and understand it isn't the same as other rating systems. It means lower figures here mean a solid book. Unfortunately a friend got annoyed with me for giving his book a 3 because he hasn't used this site and didn't look into it and assumed it was the kind of 'it's OK' kind of score it would be on Amazon, or maybe even 'mediocre', while it actually meant, as it SAYS when you rate it 'I liked it'.
I agree about the 1/2 star ideas.
Speaking just for myself, when I rate books, I rate primarily on my enjoyment of a book, rahter than the inherent literary value of a novel.
Just becuase I rated a particular "Classic" book low shouldn't impact whether that book remains a "classic". It simply means that I didn't enjoy that particular book to my tastes.
And, when trying to find new books, I value my friends ratings and reveiws especially,(since I try to befriend people with largely similar tastes), but I also take into account the -overall- star rating, the authors' track record (if any), and the general overview/description of the book.
Speaking just for myself, when I rate books, I rate primarily on my enjoyment of a book, rahter than the inherent literary value of a novel.
Just becuase I rated a particular "Classic" book low shouldn't impact whether that book remains a "classic". It simply means that I didn't enjoy that particular book to my tastes.
And, when trying to find new books, I value my friends ratings and reveiws especially,(since I try to befriend people with largely similar tastes), but I also take into account the -overall- star rating, the authors' track record (if any), and the general overview/description of the book.
I completely agree. Whenever I go to rate, I almost always wish there were the ability to add or take away a half rating out of the five star scale, which would be the same as having a ten star scale. I have visited other sites where there was the capability to rate in halves, so this would be an answer if the idea of having too many stars is not like. The notion that a ten star system is too complicated is totally ridiculous. If you think giving a rating out of 10 stars is too complicated, you probably shouldn't be reading anyway.
What drives me nuts more than anything is of the books on my list Harry Potter 7 has the highest average rating at 4.5. While Books like Heart of Darkness(3.32) A Passage to India(3.58) and The Jungle(3.64), to name a few, have curiously low ratings.
You're right, Jim. As a teacher, I have great difficulty with the pass/fail scheme also. This is probably not about failing though. It's only about improving what's in place. For me, a 10 scheme would be an improvement. I too round up and it's probably not as fair to the truly great works.
I am not so much bothered by the 5 star system but the 4.0 system of grading in the US universities for some of the same reasons that people outline on this message thread. A student who gets an 89 in a course gets a one point less grade on a four point grade system tan a student who gets a 91, yet there is only a .2 difference between the two. I wish I could start a campaign on this matter. It certainly is more important than the star system of GOOODREADS.
I agree with Bob regarding the current rating system. It works for me just fine. What is amazing is that so many books get 4 or 5 star ratings when I think they are so average. I think we should be a bit more selective in giving those high ratings or they won't mean anything!
Actually--as a veteran member of IMDb who was present almost from the very beginning--I can confirm that few people with any intelligence over there; respect or rely on the god-awful IMDb ratings system. It was found to be totally bogus and mathematically shoddy, upon close examination. Only fit for use by kids and 'factions'.
Over the years--as we gave it scrutiny--it 'came up short' time and time again. Its a terribly-designed tool which is wide open to skew, manipulation, commercial bias, and hidden agenda. I would not suggest using IMDb as a model for a good rating system.
But in another sense: no ratings system (5-scale or 10-scale) is ever going to really be adequate to express the subjective way each of us develops feelings about an artwork. It really should not make any difference to a book choice. Right?
Over the years--as we gave it scrutiny--it 'came up short' time and time again. Its a terribly-designed tool which is wide open to skew, manipulation, commercial bias, and hidden agenda. I would not suggest using IMDb as a model for a good rating system.
But in another sense: no ratings system (5-scale or 10-scale) is ever going to really be adequate to express the subjective way each of us develops feelings about an artwork. It really should not make any difference to a book choice. Right?
Ben wrote: "It seems to me that Goodreads made the mistake of beggining with a five star rating system and now will not change to the more accurate ten star rating system because existing members would have to..."
3 stars to me is about the worst rating for a book because it means it wasn't good enough to recommend, nor bad enough to hate. I'm not sure a 5 star rating out of ten would amount to the same thing, but this is parsing. I don't mind the 5 star ratings but think that there should be a 3 and a half and a four and a half star option, because anything below that is like the difference between a C - and a D + , and that's not going to help a curious reader.
3 stars to me is about the worst rating for a book because it means it wasn't good enough to recommend, nor bad enough to hate. I'm not sure a 5 star rating out of ten would amount to the same thing, but this is parsing. I don't mind the 5 star ratings but think that there should be a 3 and a half and a four and a half star option, because anything below that is like the difference between a C - and a D + , and that's not going to help a curious reader.
The whole idea of GoodReads is basically to help us find good books that will appeal to each one of us, individually, right? So, to get hung up on a rating system is not really the point, however, I would like the 1/2 star option as well. I would also like to see the description of the stars changed because a 2 star rating should not mean that a book is OK, it should mean that it was lucky to be published.
Some of the comments here have touched on this, but I use the GR rating system a little differently. I am only interested in whether I would be interested in reading the book, so I choose a number of 5 star reviews and 1 star reviews, read the reviews and then compare my books ratings to the reviewers books of which we have books in common. If they rate many books the same as I have, I feel that our interests are somewhat the same and can take their review as valid to me personally. I do this with at least 5 different reviews with high and low ratings to hopefully make my research more accurate. If I feel that enough people have the same reading tastes as me, I will choose that book as one that I would like to read. It takes a little more time, but I hate wasting time on books that do not interest me. It also lets you compare based on gender and age which helps narrow things down a little more. I have also found many more books by reading the reviews of books that I do not have in common with reviewer's that I find particularly articulate and accurate.
For those of you who may not be familiar with this option just click on a reviewer's profile picture, once their profile loads, click on compare books and it will give you a comparison of how both of you have rated books that you have in common.
Sorry I am a year behind on this discussion.
Some of the comments here have touched on this, but I use the GR rating system a little differently. I am only interested in whether I would be interested in reading the book, so I choose a number of 5 star reviews and 1 star reviews, read the reviews and then compare my books ratings to the reviewers books of which we have books in common. If they rate many books the same as I have, I feel that our interests are somewhat the same and can take their review as valid to me personally. I do this with at least 5 different reviews with high and low ratings to hopefully make my research more accurate. If I feel that enough people have the same reading tastes as me, I will choose that book as one that I would like to read. It takes a little more time, but I hate wasting time on books that do not interest me. It also lets you compare based on gender and age which helps narrow things down a little more. I have also found many more books by reading the reviews of books that I do not have in common with reviewer's that I find particularly articulate and accurate.
For those of you who may not be familiar with this option just click on a reviewer's profile picture, once their profile loads, click on compare books and it will give you a comparison of how both of you have rated books that you have in common.
Sorry I am a year behind on this discussion.
You're totally right; the current scale's precision is too low to draw much meaning from it. I would even argue that a twenty-point scale would not be overkill. The five-star rating scale leads to the problem of many books on GoodReads with a rating of around 3.8-4.3 stars, which makes decisions about whether or not to read books based on their ratings unfeasible.
GoodReads is a good idea, but if the averaged ratings cannot convey information, that's a significant knock against the value of the site.
GoodReads is a good idea, but if the averaged ratings cannot convey information, that's a significant knock against the value of the site.
I'm new to Goodreads. This discussion seems like it's relevant to Goodreads as a whole -- as opposed to a specific book. Is there no place in Goodreads to have such discussions?
Regarding the number of rating choices, maybe more would help. Although the problem I think I'm seeing is that almost every book has approximately the same rating. I have yet to see anything less than 3 or more than slightly over 4. In imdb, the ratings for movies really vary a lot -- and are therefore much more significant.
Regarding the number of rating choices, maybe more would help. Although the problem I think I'm seeing is that almost every book has approximately the same rating. I have yet to see anything less than 3 or more than slightly over 4. In imdb, the ratings for movies really vary a lot -- and are therefore much more significant.
To tell the truth I had not been losing sleep over the Goodreads rating system. I guess I was vaguely conscious that it did not allow for a lot of precision in reporting my assessment of a book but like with most things, I just dealt with it. When in doubt I will always go up rather than down a point. But I see that you have made some excellent points and I do think I would be happier and would also find Goodreads an even more useful tool with a more accurate rating system.
I don't think it makes a difference whether there is five stars or ten -- or a hundred, for that matter. A scale is a scale.
What I do find problematic in the GR rating system is that it is impossible to distinguish between a book that you *like* and a book that you think is *good* (i.e., well-written).
What I do find problematic in the GR rating system is that it is impossible to distinguish between a book that you *like* and a book that you think is *good* (i.e., well-written).
a 10 star system is overkill. The only thing I would change about the current system is giving you the ability to give 1/2 stars.
I personally don't really bother much with the ratings. It's the reviews that pull me in. But that leads to my gripe. Many of the reviews are just ridiculously long. Do you folks really believe we read all your BS? Come on people, keep it short and to the point.
I don't think a scale of ten would end up being much more precise than a scale of five. All ratings are highly subjective and often subject to what I call rating inflation, so that a three on a five scale or five on a ten scale will be seen as a poor review by many, even though the scale designer may call that rating good. New books often get top ratings by relatives, friends and neighbors (and the author or publisher); if a book becomes moderately popular, those ratings may decline as more objective reviewers chip in; if it becomes a best sellar ratings may rise again, as publicity attracts fans of the particular genre or subject. A more detailed scale will be as affected by these contingencies as much as a less detailed one. Ratings without actually reading the reviews are, in the end, not worth much.
I don't like this system. Seems like they could add a half star which would effectively be a 10 star rating. They wouldn't have to change all the previous ratings. If users wanted to change their previous ratings they could. This would much more accurate. I just finished the Book Thief and thought it was very good but how could I rate it 5 stars the same as the Brothers Karamazov.
I'd almost like a pass/fail rating, either you recommend it or you don't. There is too much "meh" between 1 and 5 stars.
as far as star-rating inaccuracy is concerned, i think it should be mentioned that the average age of goodreads users are between 18-30. Consider what that age group often reads and does not read.
I think rating books is stupid anyway, because a perfectly fine book will get bad ratings because the wrong person read the book, or they are too sensitive and bring the rating down. And you will never, ever, ever please EVERYONE, and most people like to get on to complain about something rather than praise it. Some of my favorite books by Philippa Gregory have low ratings on this site, and it's probably because the content is pretty outrageous, but I liked them. I gave them 4-5 stars on this rating system.
People who have never even read a book will go write reviews about books that they know nothing about. For example, in the iBooks store, if you look up "The Origin of Species" by Darwin, you can read a host of "reviews" and low ratings written by people who are simply crazy people with nothing better to do than rate a book down they've never read, simply because they disagree with the content.
People who have never even read a book will go write reviews about books that they know nothing about. For example, in the iBooks store, if you look up "The Origin of Species" by Darwin, you can read a host of "reviews" and low ratings written by people who are simply crazy people with nothing better to do than rate a book down they've never read, simply because they disagree with the content.
deleted member
Dec 12, 2012 08:08AM
0 votes
All rating systems are flawed. I'd gladly do away with the star system entirely. As it stands, five is just as good as ten.
The "if you can't handle ten stars you shouldn't be reading" vibe that runs through some of these posts is pretty remarkable. And pretty shitty.
I would wager that a bunch of the high HP scores come from younger readers who are more enthusiastic about things, and therefore give whatever they like a high score. Whether you find it qualitatively better is up to you. If the side-effect of their enthusiasm about reading is that I have to take the scores with a grain of salt, then I'm happy to do so. Shouldn't we be happy people are reading in general?
Hell, like Metacritic, these things are just a guide, not gospel - all criticism is relative. I'd like the option for half-stars, yep, but it's hardly a knicker-twister for me.
This is probably the wrong place to be looking for statistical rigour and excellence. I'm fairly certain everyone knows this, right? But to suggest that those who aren't pro-ten stars or whatever are somehow impaired, stupid or unworthy of membership here is unnecessary and at odds with the openness of discussion that I've seen around here.
People might think their ratings of classics are more worthwhile than fantasy guff - that's fine, but looking down on others' reading habits doesn't actually prove that you're any better than they are.
I would wager that a bunch of the high HP scores come from younger readers who are more enthusiastic about things, and therefore give whatever they like a high score. Whether you find it qualitatively better is up to you. If the side-effect of their enthusiasm about reading is that I have to take the scores with a grain of salt, then I'm happy to do so. Shouldn't we be happy people are reading in general?
Hell, like Metacritic, these things are just a guide, not gospel - all criticism is relative. I'd like the option for half-stars, yep, but it's hardly a knicker-twister for me.
This is probably the wrong place to be looking for statistical rigour and excellence. I'm fairly certain everyone knows this, right? But to suggest that those who aren't pro-ten stars or whatever are somehow impaired, stupid or unworthy of membership here is unnecessary and at odds with the openness of discussion that I've seen around here.
People might think their ratings of classics are more worthwhile than fantasy guff - that's fine, but looking down on others' reading habits doesn't actually prove that you're any better than they are.
It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me... I think there is a trade-off between user accuracy in rating (with a ten-point scale, more refined ratings are possible and everyone can be more nuanced in their scoring) and between the interpretation of ratings (what does a 7 mean to you? Acceptable, mediocre, good?).
Hence, I am not even sure a 10-point scale would be desirable.
It seems to me the much bigger problem, as mentioned in this thread, is the lack of a clear interpretation of the criteria used to score a book. Is the rating aimed at reflecting how enjoyable the book is? How well written it is? Some more vaporous definition of 'quality'? Should the rating reflect edition-specific qualities, such as font, paper, usage and formatting of footnotes, cover and artwork?
Those are just examples, but I think they point to a much bigger, much larger problem than a 'five point scale'.
Not to talk about subjective feelings about the validity of 'popular consensus'...
I love GoodReads and I value opinions. But it does not, to use the OP's language, have to be a democracy. I look at individual ratings and at reviews. If a book is being praised by someone who rated Twilight or Larsson high, I disregard that comment - as, clearly, the reviewer's taste does not match mine. I don't denigrate their opinion - but I simply dismiss it as irrelevant as a predictor of my own enjoyment...
What I am trying to say is... aggregate scores are not very meaningful - but (1) it has little to do with the number of stars and (2) the site is still a great way to find your 'next great read'.
Hence, I am not even sure a 10-point scale would be desirable.
It seems to me the much bigger problem, as mentioned in this thread, is the lack of a clear interpretation of the criteria used to score a book. Is the rating aimed at reflecting how enjoyable the book is? How well written it is? Some more vaporous definition of 'quality'? Should the rating reflect edition-specific qualities, such as font, paper, usage and formatting of footnotes, cover and artwork?
Those are just examples, but I think they point to a much bigger, much larger problem than a 'five point scale'.
Not to talk about subjective feelings about the validity of 'popular consensus'...
I love GoodReads and I value opinions. But it does not, to use the OP's language, have to be a democracy. I look at individual ratings and at reviews. If a book is being praised by someone who rated Twilight or Larsson high, I disregard that comment - as, clearly, the reviewer's taste does not match mine. I don't denigrate their opinion - but I simply dismiss it as irrelevant as a predictor of my own enjoyment...
What I am trying to say is... aggregate scores are not very meaningful - but (1) it has little to do with the number of stars and (2) the site is still a great way to find your 'next great read'.
I do agree. The other part of the reading experience I feel would be worth measuring is the quality. I see a number of the classics have relativly poor ratings on this site becuase they can be harder to read or for any number of reasons. I feel the metrics could be improved by also measuring what readers felt about the quality of the book.
Simple explanation as to why books such as Harry Potter have high fours or fives and classic works such as Heart of Darkness have average scores. Most people aren't scoring based on literary merit, but upon whether or not they enjoyed the book. If you hover over the stars, you are prompted to consider the enjoyment level - 5-Loved it; 4-Really Liked it; 3-Liked it; 2-OK... People who are readers of later chronicles of the H.P. series love the series; the book is nearly guaranteed a 4 or a 5. Add to that the fact that Harry Potter is one of the most registered and loved series. On the other hand there is poor misunderstood Heart. Most readers of the book are not going to love it. It is wordy and heavy going. Good chance many will not understand it. I requires some serious concentration compared to more current novels. Many readers read for fun, or as the ratings system encourages them, for enjoyment. Being challenged is not considered enjoyable but work to many. Besides readers are not flocking in droves to get their the newest edition of Conrad. In fact I would guess a fair number read it because it is assigned for a class.Ever seem a midnight book launch with millions worldwide waiting for the newest translation of Crime and Punishment?
In short, the Goodreads prompt and the numbers leave books such are Harry Potter with high marks and books like Heart with average ones.
When I rate a book it is very hard for me to not consider literary quality. I rarely enjoy books of a poor quality. Also, I tend to rate things based on their type. A book written for teens or middle readers I am rating against similar books. Same for mystery or other genre books. I usually note this in my review.
As for Potter, nothing I have said should indicate anything about the quality of the series. I haven't read the books. They may be masterworks for all I know.
Stars?? The five works for me fine. A half star would be nice. It is the review that I notice more. Librarything has five stars also, while Bookcrossing has ten. When I think about my using the stars on Bookcrossing, I don't really feel more or less hampered.
In short, the Goodreads prompt and the numbers leave books such are Harry Potter with high marks and books like Heart with average ones.
When I rate a book it is very hard for me to not consider literary quality. I rarely enjoy books of a poor quality. Also, I tend to rate things based on their type. A book written for teens or middle readers I am rating against similar books. Same for mystery or other genre books. I usually note this in my review.
As for Potter, nothing I have said should indicate anything about the quality of the series. I haven't read the books. They may be masterworks for all I know.
Stars?? The five works for me fine. A half star would be nice. It is the review that I notice more. Librarything has five stars also, while Bookcrossing has ten. When I think about my using the stars on Bookcrossing, I don't really feel more or less hampered.
I have looked extensively at the five-star rating systems widely adopted by Goodreads, bn.com, amazon and other online book review sites. Many reviewers aren't reading the literary masterpieces and many younger readers simply haven't arrived at them yet. However, there is an approach which applies 25 literary criteria toward a novel and then translates the summary average into a more reliable 1-5 star rating. If you want to see how to gain a highly reliable 1-5 star rating for novels through Critical Performance Indicators (CPIs), then this new system of critical theory is defined here:
http://wordsworthgreenwi.hubpages.com...
http://wordsworthgreenwi.hubpages.com...
What is the concern with the number of stars that can be given? Ratings and reviews are all subjective. I don't think readers are overly concerned about the rating system used. If they rate and review honestly, that's all anyone can ask.
I not seeing an issue here. Every site has different meanings for each star anyway. If you don't like the way Goodreads does the ratings, then go elsewhere. Why should everyone else have to change because a very small minority demands everything be done THEIR way?
I like things just the way they are and apparently so are a lot of other members.
I not seeing an issue here. Every site has different meanings for each star anyway. If you don't like the way Goodreads does the ratings, then go elsewhere. Why should everyone else have to change because a very small minority demands everything be done THEIR way?
I like things just the way they are and apparently so are a lot of other members.
Don't be such a dick. Just because all people think differently doesn't make you more intellectually superior to anyone, asshole.
You guys have too much free time. Skip the freaking stars and write a review. Duh.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
